war on terror
Bush said, "We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world." Look, he's telling us what he means. We're struggling against people "who happen to use terror as a weapon." Sounds like the key point in the "war on terror" isn't "terror" after all. They just "happen to use terror as a weapon." So our war is really with "ideological extremists." But not just any "ideological extremists." We're friends with Christian fundamentalists and the vatican and lots of other kind of extreme ideologies. We specifically at war with "ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies." Ok, so what is a "free society?" That itself is a code word. Remember the cold war? East against west? The free world against communism? The free world is made up of free societies. If they're in binary opposition to communism, free societies must be capitalist. captialism = freedom. "Free world" and "free societies" mean capitalism. Both those phrases are used. We're stuggling against ideological extremists who do not beleive in capitalism and who happen to use terror as a weapon to shake the conscience of captialist countries. Oh no! Communists! But how do we define communism? The state department says you're a communist if you put the needs of people before the needs of multinational trade. Maybe they're ideological extremists who don't want to be neo-colonies of the west. They're opposed to our foreign policy that sees them as just part of our supply lines. We might feel bad about that from time to time. It could sake out conscience. We're at war with ideological extremists who don't believe in neocolonialism . . . [and] try to shake the consience of capitalist countries. These guys sound less perpplexingly evil all the time. It sounds like they might have legitimate greviences that could be addressed, so that they wouldn't have to use terror as a weapon. Maybe there's some solution aside from killing all of them. Afterall, if use violence as a first resort, aren't we sources of terror?
No, because of what that definition doesn't say. Using terror to shake the conscience of non-capitalist or non-colonialist states is a-ok. As long as you beleive in "free societies." Nuclear weapons are ok as long as we've got them. Using terror as a weapon is ok as long as we're doing it. Terrorism is defined as attacking non-military targets with the intent to changing the mind of a people. Or really any attack designed to change the minds of non-compatants. Like "shock and awe" was designed to um, shock and awe the folks in Iraq so they wouldn't want war and maybe would just throw Hussein out for us. The CIA has blown up many non-military targets while trying to assasinate somebody or trying to change people's minds. The contras attacked clinics under our bidding, trying to change the outcome of an election. But we're not at war with our own terror. It's in the service of neo-colonialism.
I'm not just being silly. What Bush said is a straight-up admission that some terror is ok and some is not and really depends on who is doing it and what their movitves are. Fighting our foreign policy of corporate dominance is specifically not ok, and that's what we're at war with. People think Bush is stupid, but the depth of information that he's providing here suggests that he's not, he's just akward. You can't be that dumb if your dad was head of the CIA